Poll: What is your opinion about the capture of Saddam Hussein?

totally first post.. . . .I wonder if he's going to get a fair trial

Depends on who's trying him.� Fairness by the US would be different than fairness of any other group or country.

Hm.� Much like "justice" and "liberty."

See, the thing is this. . yes he horribly abused human rights, he was a terrible leader.� he is not innocent.

*however* I wonder if he has a trial, if he will speak about our business deals with him in the 80's, how we sold him weapons, about giving him the okay to invade Kuwait, about the war with Iran and the Kurds.� How basically, *yes* he is wicked. . but the thing is we sanctioned his wickedness. We helped him, we armed him.� And it's more complicated than "he's awful and we're great."� The fact is that�the United States is partly responsible.� And if he is going to be accused of war crimes, then our leaders should be held to the same standards.� He killed so many of his people but look how many we have killed.���

I personally think Saddam was one of our tools.� We set him up in power, armed him, made business deals, and then targeted him as our enemy when it was in our interests. All those torture chambers were fine when he was our buddy, but when Bush wanted a war to finish what his daddy started and increase his approval, suddenly we *had* to liberate the Iraqi people. It really doesn't add up.

I really wonder what's going to happen though.�

Very well put. I completely agree.

Saddam Hussein was a tin-pot dictator who posed no threat to the US. He didn't have WMD, and he wasn't funding al Qaeda. If we accept the premises for going to war against Iraq, then we would have to invade the entire middle east and several areas in southeast asia, just for starters.

For the Iraqi people, it is a good thing Saddam is in custody. It makes little to no difference for the American people. Other than helping to guarantee that Bush gets re-elected. Especially if Dean wins the Democratic nomination.

When you're the "leader of the free world", you get to redefine what constitutes a war crime. They've been doing it all along to suit their needs. Hell, they just broke a fairly plain law about showing humiliating video of prisoners of war. Oh wait, sorry, he's not a "prisoner of war". Hah.

I dunno. I think being Ex-president of Iraq means he isn't a prisoner of war. He wasn't really "in" the military (he controlled it). He's not being held because he is a member of an opposing army, he is being held because he is "suspected" of crimes against humanity, and becuse he is working against the occupation.

Also, to be a POW, you have to be captured in uniform, during a conflict. There is no longer a war "with" Iraq. The former goverment has been replaced. It is no longer the lawful goverment, and it is not recognized as such by most of the world. Therefore, someone committing armed agression against the current government (such as it is) is now a terrorist, not a soldier.

The average soldier, operating under lawful orders of his superior does have the right to expect that he or she will not be humiliated for political or propaganda purposes. I don't see how that covers someone like Saddam. I'd say rather that the world has a right to see that this rat has been caged.

I voted for the first choice but I never say "dang."

I didn't pick two because it is independent about how I feel about the war. His being captured is a good thing. There is actually a good parallel in LOTR. It is in the appendices but it is in the book. Ar Pharazon the Golden was King of Numenor. He was a horrible king who persecuted the faithful and caused the destruction of Numenor. He sent his fleet to Middle Earth to challenge Sauron, not for noble purposes but for power. Sauron on seeing the force arrayed against him surrended without a fight. Despite the evil that Ar Pharazon did the Dunedain, the decendents of the Faithful, honored the day Sauron was defeated and erected a monument on the spot that the fleet landed.

Yeah, this sums up best how I feel.
Getting Saddam is a good thing.
A suprising thing, but good regardless.

Whether we should or should not have gone to war, Saddam not being in power is good. Just because the means might not be justified doesn't mean the ends can't be good in their own right.

For the first few seconds I thought it was some joke about having been in the "spider hole" with Saddam, or sympathizing with the man because one also lives in a hole.

Where's the "Glad they caught him...but it still doesn't make us safer" option?

What about "Nice that they caught him, but what if all the resources that have been brought to bear to kill/capture him had instead been used to get Bin Laden?"

But capturing Bin Laden is haaaard. Let's go to the mall.

I agree.� :)

like totally, at first I though capturing bin laden would like, for sure make me popular but now I just want a smoothy.

Can we stop at hotdog-on-a-stick?

Um....
huh?

I think making sure he can't come back into power stops a few deaths. While I don't think he was directly involved in the recent attacks, I think that capturing him is nessisary to begin to stop them.

And, um, you feel sorry for him? It's not like he was suspected of killing a few million people. There's really no doubt in the matter. Honesrly, I have a feeling that he's going to be fairly upfront and arrogant when it comes to the trial. It's important that there is a trial, but it is going to be more of a setencing phase than anything else.

Actually I read that he is claiming that Iran is the one that gassed the Kurds, not him.

dood.

he created children's prisons.

he locked up the children of people he wanted to control.

children as young as 2 years old were locked up with insufficient food and water.

you feel sorry for him?

Good. he SHOULDNT get a fair trial. anyone who hasnt been hiding in a hole for the past decade (haha, ace in the hole) knows who hussein is, and anyone with a conscience would�vote to bring�him to the ultimate punishment

Im all for human rights and fair and humane treatment under the law.... But come on, its fricken Saddam.

oy.� this is going to start a discussion i am afraid of.

where do we then draw the line, jen?� who then is entitled to human rights and who is not?� how do we define the strict laws that determine that someone forfeits their rights to what we believe to be fair treatment?

his actions were inhuman and inhumane, but that doesn't make him any more or less than human.� insisting that he is not entitled to a fair trial would bring us eye to eye with him, and that frightens me more than anything else.

besides.� an unfair trial and a death penalty as a result would simply make him a martyr in the eyes of a whole lot of capable weapon-wielding rebels, not a criminal facing his punishment, and nothing gets more publicity than the hanging of a martyr. d:

�-= george =-

Ok, I can see your point clearly. I take back what i said about him not deserving a fair trial. As a human being, he has the intrinsic right to a fair trial,��proper procedure and right to an attorney, etc.� It was wrong wording on my part.� But i do agree a trial should and will be more about sentencing than determining guilt. He's being tried in Iraq right? I dont know how the court system differs there in proceedings.

But the simple fact is, because of who he is, he won't be getting what is usually deemed a "fair trial". And simply�BEACAUSE of who he is, i dont have a problem with that!

jen

Right, because the US had such an easy time capturing him while he was in power before?